Thursday, September 1, 2016

AMERICA NUKED ON 9/11: Targeting a book to promote 9/11 research


Jim Fetzer

The Cambridge University Press journal, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, became an instant sensation by publishing target articles on specific, well-defined subjects and inviting experts from around the world to post critical commentaries about it, which has resulted in significant advances in research. During the 9/11 Truth Teleconference on 31 August 2016, I proposed that the new book about 9/11,


which has 15 contributors, might serve a similar purpose and thereby similarly significantly advance 9/11 research. Here are some of the important reasons to believe that we ought to adopt that suggestion.

The book is divided into 28 chapters, where the core falls into 8 sections that, in reverse order, focus upon "9/11 Limited Hangouts", "The Myth of Nanothermite", "The 9/11 Crash Sites", "The Pentagon: What didn't Happen", "New York was Nuked on 9/11", "What happened on 9/11", and "9/11: Who was responsible and why", Parts I and II, with three chapters each. It has a Preface and a Prologue as well as an Epilogue and an Afterword with an Index. Softcover, 458 pages, 338 photos, priced low at $20.

There are three major groups in 9/11 research--A&E911, which supports the use of nanothermite and focuses on Building 7; Judy Wood and DEWs, which promotes Directed Energy Weapons and no planes theory; and Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which advances the use of mini or micro nukes to blow apart the Twin Towers and likewise contends that none of the official 9/11 aircraft actually crashed on 9/11. The contributors explain why A&E911 is right about Building 7 but wrong about nanothermite and why Judy Wood and DEWs is right about no planes but wrong about DEWs.

Because the arguments and evidence presented are specific and detailed, the book facilitates a level of intellectual engagement that is missing from most discussions about 9/11. In relation to nanothermite, for example, three chapters explain that it is a law of materials science that, in order for an explosive to blow apart a material, it must have a detonation velocity equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material. The speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s; in steel, it is 6,100 m/s; but the highest detonation velocity attributed to nanothermite in the scientific literature is only 895 m/s. And the three chapters in the book that make these points were originally published in 2011--over 5 years ago!

The Latest from A&E911


That makes it obvious that those who want to defend the use of nanothermite in the destruction of the Twin Towers need to explain what else was used to bring that effect about. While it is certainly true that something else could have been added to make it explosive, A&E911 has been reluctant to say what that something else could have been. The same, of course, could be said of toothpaste, which is also non-explosive but could be made explosive by adding an explosive to it. After all these years, it is not unreasonable to expect that A&E911 should have an answer to that question. But that does not seem to be the case. Here is a report about the state of its research on 9/11, which has just appeared:


While the article presents proof that the "official narrative" of 9/11 cannot be sustained, it does not advance anything that has not been widely known with the 9/11 research community in the past. If you compare these propositions with my own "20 reasons the 'official account' of 9/11 is wrong", for example, you can see that the latest from A&E911 does not significantly advance our knowledge and understanding beyond what was available then, where "20 reasons" was originally published on 9/11 of 2011! Surely we should be able to expect more from an organization that has such a high profile and tends to consume the attention of the public and media. Just compare their respective contents:


Judy Wood and DEWs


Indeed, some might be tempted to argue that the earlier article covered more ground that the latest from A&E. But Judy Wood and DEWs have not been doing any better. Consider, for example, that a review of her book, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? (2010), which I originally published on 20 May 2012, was subsequently downgraded from 5-star to 3-star on the basis of research presented during The Vancouver Hearings, which were held in June 2012. It has been subject to attack around 7,500 times now. But denouncing evidence of the use of nukes does not explain it away, where Judy has displayed the unscientific attitude of ignoring it. A scientist would instead take into account new evidence not previously considered and adapt their theory appropriately by accepting hypotheses that had been previously rejected, rejecting hypotheses previously accepted, leaving others in suspense:


The point is that the specificity of the arguments presented in this new book make it possible to make advances by citing specific propositions that are laid out in detail with the evidence supporting them, which enables those who disagree to explain what they have wrong and how we know. Otherwise, we are left in the muddle of having to deal with distorted versions of those arguments, which do not come to grips with the evidence and leaving issues hanging. That was exhibited perfectly during the 9/11 Truth Teleconference, when Adam Ruff and Wayne Costa challenged my explanation of how we know that this was a nuclear event, which were nice illustrations of the point that I am making here.

Objections raised during the call


I observed that the conversion of material into very fine dust and the vaporization of 60-80,000 tons of steel are indicative of the use of nukes as well as the destruction of the buildings to or even below ground level. Wayne Costa replied that elements "that shouldn't be there" does not take into account that some of those elements could have been present because of naturally occurring concentrations of those elements or from other sources. That sounded persuasive but, as the book explains, they would not have been there in the quantities discovered and the correlations between them had this not been a nuclear event. There would have been less likelihood of misunderstanding using the book as a basis.

Adam Ruff contended that there would have been no reason to use nukes because everything that was done could have been done with nanothermite and explosives. Ruff said that there was "a giant pile of debris", but ignored the point that there was no massive stack of debris in the towers' footprints! Comparisons with Building 7 are instructive here, because experience with controlled demolitions have shown that they leave a stack of debris equal to about 12% of their original heights. At 47 floors, WTC-7 left just that residue in a stack of debris 5.5 floors high. But that was not true of the Twin Towers, which, had they been demolished as Ruff suggests, should have left debris piles 14-15 floors high but did not:

Compare the debris from WTC-7 (left) with that from WTC-1 (right), which should have been more than twice as high.
Indeed, while it is appropriate to describe the destruction of WTC-7 as a "controlled demolition", it is not appropriate to use the same phrase for the Twin Towers, which were "demolitions under control" but lacked the characteristics of controlled demolitions. The reason for having to have used a novel technique for their destruction appears to have been to protect the bathtub, which was an enormous dike within which the towers were constructed to protect them from Hudson River water. Had the bathtub been breeched, it would have flooded beneath lower Manhattan, the most valuable real estate in the world, including the subway and PATH train tunnels, which they wanted at all cost to avoid.

The use of mini or micro nukes, which have dialable radii and can be directed upward, means that the destruction of the Twin Towers qualified as the use of "Directed Energy Weapons", which, according to Judy Wood, are devices that provide far more energy than conventional and can be directed. Set at 100' in the core columns, they would have had a diameter of 200' for buildings that were 208' on a side. Their use enabled the destruction of both buildings from the top down in an effort to simulate collapse. But they were being blown apart in every direction and converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. And this appears to be how it was done as the USGS dust studies substantiate.


Other arguments could be made, of course, including that the final spire of the North Tower seems to run counter to the use of nukes. But even at Hiroshima, the scaffolding of a lone church remained after the enormous blast had done its damage. And these were mini or micro nukes, whose use has also been confirmed by the debilitating medical maladies incurred by first responders and residents of the area, which include non-Hodgkins lymphoma, leukemia, thyroid, pancreatic, brain, esophageal, prostate and blood and plasma cancers at rates far above normal, which Jeff Prager was among the first to point out and where recent estimates have placed the number affected at close to 70,000.

For those who regard characterizing A&E911 and Judy Wood and DEWs as "limited hangouts", the argument is straightforward. We have three major problems to solve about 9/11: the WHO, the HOW and the WHY. Both of those organizations only address the HOW and refuse to explain the WHO or the WHY. That is simply absurd for 9/11 Truth organizations. Only Scholars for 9/11 Truth addresses all three. AMERICA NUKED ON 9/11: Compliments of the CIA, the Neocons in the DOD and the Mossad (2016) lays out the evidence in detail. But we make no claims to infallibility--and the best test of the validity of our case is critical attempts to refute it, which can be accomplished if we make this book the target for scrutiny and criticism and thereby advance the cause of exposing 9/11 Truth.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth and the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.



53 comments:

  1. Jim: I have a serious question and I hope this is clear. Don't you think there is diminishing returns on 9/11 research and what effect it has on people understanding what happened on that day? I think too many people hit a wall, come to some half-baked conclusion about this subject area and have moved on. What more can be wrote and said until critical mass has been reached?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This book explains the WHO, the HOW and the WHY of 9/11. It actually solves the case. Check it out.

      Delete
    2. Right! The CRIME has been committed and proven. It's high time to focus on and dish out PUNISHMENT to the Israeli CRIMINALS and the American COVER-UP TRAITORS!

      Delete
    3. Hippopatamos von BraunSeptember 5, 2016 at 3:05 AM

      David Norton. There is little left to be said. All of the evidence has been laid to bare and nobody here has the balls to do anything about it.
      Controlled demolition. Case closed.


      Delete
  2. Velocity be dammed.

    Nanothermite was used in conjunction to conventional explosives. The nanothermite was ignited at critical intersections of the steel frame to weaken the area first, followed by the conventional explosive charges. This allowed a much smaller conventional charge to accomplish the destruction of each joint, so the sound of the explosions could be effectively muffled.

    All of the nanothermite and conventional charges were placed on the inner core columns, so the exterior walls would block the sound and flashes from spectators, and the shock wave then blew outward the exterior walls in a perfectly computer synchronized wave.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then there would have been a massive pile of debris equal to about 12% of the height of the original. For WTC-7 at 47 floors, the debris was 5.5 floors high. For the Twin Towers at 110 floors, it would have been more than double that around 13-14 floors high--but it isn't there. You need to give this more thought. Your hypothesis has been falsified by the observable evidence.

      Delete
    2. Each floor was 4 inches of poured concrete reinforced with rebar. 110 floors X 4" = 36 feet of concrete, or three stories. And considering there were at least six basement levels that could soak up most of those 36 feet of concrete, the resulting piles were just about right.

      Delete
    3. Nice try! WTC-7 had subbasements, too, yet it had a debris pile that extended 5.5 floors above ground level. I am dismayed by posts like this. He doesn't even have the depth of the concrete right, where there were 4" V-shaped groves in the steel trusses, which meant that there was a variance between 4" and 8" deep of concrete on each floor--not to mention the USGS dust studies and medical maladies.

      Delete
    4. Not to mention the 47 story concrete slab in each tower.

      Delete
    5. Not to go on a sidetrack argument, but, I had the 4" depth correct. If there were variances as you suggest, they were minor in total.

      Please advise where where I can cross check your figure of vaporization of 60-80,000 tons of steel. I recall hundreds of dump trucks carting away nicely severed sections of steel beams off to Fresh Kills for many weeks: http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/security_gps.html

      Delete
    6. A 47 story concrete slab? In each tower? I know of the 47 story WTC7, but a slab?

      Delete
    7. Right on Fandango. Fetzer is using this 12% figure and failing to realize the height of the buildings would have allowed for further dispersion of debris. Pictures of 200 Vesey St. show that the perimeter beams were thrown at at least 600 feet. This gives the rubble fall-out area for the steel over one million square feet. You can tell by the pictures that the concrete was largely turned into dust.
      This 12% figure is not applicable in this case. Fetzer presents this as a fact when it is a mere extrapolation based on the routine demolitions of smaller buildings.
      The rubble-pile for WTC 7 was proportionately larger that WTC 1 for two reasons:
      1) It was a shorter building
      2) It exploded from the bottom up (in the usual manner) and not from the top-down as seen in the main buildings.

      Delete
    8. I have to admit, I love agreeing with someone who agrees with me... but... you are 100% correct on all points anyway ;)

      WTC7 did not have the exterior walls blown out as WTC1 & WTC2, so the prefab wall panels simply stacked up like a house of cards, neatly in the footprint of the foundation. The perimeter streets around WTC7 were nearly free from debris from its collapse, the majority of the debris was from WTC1

      Delete
    9. There is a vast amount of experience with classic controlled demolitions, where the typical result is a stack of debris equal to about 12% of the height of the building. That was true of WTC-7 and, had the Twin Towers collapsed, it would have been true of them, too. But there was no corresponding pile of debris, which means that they did not collapse. This is not a difficult inference but elementary. They were destroyed to or even below ground level.

      Delete
    10. And of course you are not taking into account the results of the US Geological Survey dust sample studies or the epidemiological data about first responders and other residents of the area. The idea that 110 story buildings would have less debris in their footprints than a 47 story building suggests to me that you are not really serious about any of this. But keep on truckin'.

      Delete
    11. And the argument that the debris was not in their footprints because it was blown outward reflects the fact that the buildings were being blow apart in every direction and converted into millions of public yards of very fine dust. So the promise you use to dismiss the absence of massive pile of debris in their footprints is itself proof that these weren't collapses. Q.E.D.

      Delete
  3. How does the micro nuke attack account for the eyewitness descriptions from firefighters 'floors popping out, seeing bright flashes, etc.'which match a traditional controlled demolition scenario?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As seen here: http://dotheordersstillstand.blogspot.com/2010/03/myth-of-no-explosives-at-world-trade.html Here is my own compilation of accounts from primary sources like the Port Authority Transcripts, etc. and focuses on the actions in the basement of WTC North Tower: http://dotheordersstillstand.blogspot.com/2007/03/case-for-explosives-at-world-trade.html

      Delete
    2. Because AOT, multiples methods where used. If the only method you think happened then there would have been forty stories or rubble. Your method does not explain the small amount of rubble and most things turning into fine powder.

      Delete
    3. David Norton has been lobotomized, don't listen to his ramblings. We all know that no nukes and no DEW's were used.
      These are just epistemological cartoons for lobotomized rednecks.

      Delete
  4. ISRAEL NUKED AMERICA ON 911!

    The rest is meaningless TRIVIA!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jim I want to read your book. I would like to know if you have read Joseph P. Farrell's new book, "Hidden Finance, Rogue Networks, and Secret Sorcery: The Fascist International, 9/11, and Penetrated Operations"? It is excellent!

    ReplyDelete
  6. It appears that Jim Fetzer is an ex-Officer of a different USMC than Dr. Alan Sabrosky, who said: "It is 100% CERTAIN that Israel{Mossad} did 911" and "WE ARE COMING FOR YOU!" - United States Mouse Corps! - The Mouse That Roared!

    It will take FORCE to defeat the Israeli Zionist Slimeballs and their ALIEN Masters! [Harold Wallace Rosenthal - "The Hidden Tyranny"].

    ReplyDelete
  7. You can start by refusing to pay your taxes and divesting from Israel and the machine. The machine wants your money and where GS is that this movement to quit paying taxes until the people's voice is heard will climax when there is an official proposal to tax your carbon footprint. If this doesn't wake the masses, nothing will.

    ReplyDelete
  8. DN: There have already been movements to quit paying taxes (Schiff, et al) and they have failed! The mindless masses will not be roused out of their lethargy until DISASTER strikes close to home - if then! It will take individual initiative and ACTION by courageous HEROES like Edward Snowden and Mordechai Vanunu. The vast herd of American Sheeple is easily placated by daily rations of TV, sports, beer and other titillation! They may wake up in large numbers when they and their children are starving and/or homeless!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When top-tier Zionist Slimeballs and Israel-FIRSTers are "taken out of circulation", THEY will start to PANIC!

      There are MANY easy targets, WALKING AMONG US!

      I think that's what Dr. Alan Sabrosky meant when he said [several years ago] "WE ARE COMING FOR YOU!"
      Delete

      Delete
    2. Remind me of your comment when or if the carbon tax comes to fruition.

      Delete
    3. OK, DN.

      It occurred to me that Alan S. might have meant "WE ARE COMING FOR YOU {ISRAEL} WITH ALL OF AMERICA'S NUCLEAR CAPABILITY - WHEN YOU LEAST EXPECT IT!". That would explain Ezekiel 22:20.

      Delete
  9. It was the jet fuel,that shit is hot. Two planes hit two buildings boom boom, they burned up fell down end of story. . . What does it matter now any how, 9/11 happened such a long time ago..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you know HOW hot? Probably 800 Celsius. That's half the value needed to melt structural steel.

      "Well, it burned for over an hour". Yeah, and many wood stoves and furnaces burn all winter long without collapsing. Hot metal isn't weak metal. It's when it approaches its melting point that it weakens.

      9/11 DID happen a long time ago. Look at what happened because of it. Look at the war in Iraq. Look at the patriot act. Look at all of the freedom lost. 9/11 was the tip of a very oppressive iceberg. That's why it's still important.

      Delete
    2. Mikhail temporarily "forgot" that NO PLANES crashed into the WTC Towers and there was no jet fuel to burn - right, Mikhail?! ;)

      Delete
    3. Maybe it's MikHAILMARY 369?!

      Delete
    4. The "BALL" delivered (using ALIEN anti-gravity technology) whatever exploded and burned in the WTC Towers. Watch the video and scientific analysis!

      Delete
    5. The Resurrection happened much longer ago - yet MILLIONS remember it every Easter Sunday! :)

      Delete
    6. Humanity must NEVER FORGET certain historic events [911 IS one of them and the alleged "Holocaust" {with mythical gas chambers} is NOT one of them!].

      Delete
    7. Egad! Underwriter Laboratories certified the steel up to 2000*F for three or four hours with no adverse effects. NIST studied 236 samples of steel from the towers and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500*F and the other three not above 1200*F. The fires only burned in the South Tower for about one hour and in the North an hour and a half. So these fires burned neither hot enough nor long enough to have done any damage to the steel.

      Delete
    8. Are you lobotomized Mikhail?

      Delete
  10. That's exhibit A Mr. Fetzer. I wonder if Mike ever had a Kerosene heater?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jet fuel is primarily made of kerosene Mike. When you lit your kerosene heater did it melt the metal from the heater?

    ReplyDelete
  12. It would be a good idea to use conclusions of Czech scientists in the text of Your book. They were published in this book:

    https://www.scholars-press.com/catalog/details//store/gb/book/978-3-639-66816-2/dynamics-of-collapse-of-a-high-rise-building

    Twin Towers Collapse Independent Computer Model of Czech experts /team of AE member Ivan Nemec from Brno Technical University/

    Richard Gage has this book, and was in e-mail contact with prof. Nemec - during his 2015 Europe tour (Mr. Gage missed the plane to Wienna, I travelled there from Brno in May with Ivan Nemec).

    E-mail contact to Ivan Němec:
    nemec.i@fce.vutbr.cz

    FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
    Institute of Structural Mechanics - associate professor

    Few words from the book which is full of diferentIal equations and tables:

    Preface

    „The book is inspired by the fall of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, but all the derivations and formulae are valid for a collapse of an arbitrariy high- rise building. The computer simulations are performed on a building with the same geometry“ …

    „Several additional parameters, such as the value of damping ratio, the share of the mass falling beyond the building perimeter and the average resistence of the columns to the fall have been introduced. „

    „The book is not interested in the cause of the fall, but it studies the dynamics of the fall itself, especially the speed and the extent of the collapse. Some conclusions regarding the fall of the WTC Twin Towers collapse have been made.“

    „Impossibility of the mechanism of the collapse presented in the final report of NIST is proved which imply the need of an additional investigation of the collapse of the Twin Towers od the World Trade center. „

    ___________

    Conclusions

    „In this probable combination of parameters we can see that the collapse was arrested after approximately 100 meters. The most of the building reamined standing. But this also was not observed in the case of collapse of the WTC 1 building.“

    „In both solutions it was supposed that the columns did not cause any resistance to the fall, no mass fell outside the building perimeter and there was no damping. The fall is braked only by the impact of the falling mass into the motionless mass of the floors below the crushing front, and this is an inevitable brake on the fall caused by the law of conservation of inertia, which is one of the free basic laws of mechanics. However the real collapse of the WTC1 tower was still faster. It leeds to the conclusion that the mechanics of the fall must be different than supposed by the NIST report and also by the authors of this book, and that the falling mass did not hit a motionless mass below it, but rather a mass which had started to fall before the impact of the falling mass occured. „

    ReplyDelete
  13. I am surprised R. Gage doesn´t use conclusions - results of Czech research team published in the book of prof. Ivan Nemec. Even my comments about it were wiped out from fb page of AE some time ago... AE is rising money for Alaska University team for WTC7 research, and they don´t use Twin Towers research which was done without rising any money by AE...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nice work Jim. Was curious if you agreed with the money trail, geo-political control, massive high crimes etc... that is laid out in the vid: "9/11 False Flag Conspiracy - Finally Solved (Names, Connections, Motives)" - the information I learned coupled with your work is collectively hitting the nail on the head resulting in a conclusive fashion to me. Thanks brother.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Either this is a parody blog designed to attract very sick people regurgitating extreme conspiracy theories so we can all have a good laugh at them, or it's a genuine blog run by a so called academic, that attracts very sick people that we can get very angry with for disrespecting those who died on the planes and those on the ground, who suffered at the hands of Islamic terrorists. Hang your heads in shame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rob, is that you? Jim's academic credentials far outshines yours and the lamest conspiracy of all is the one you are promoting. Your guilt by association tactics don't work here. Go hang your hand in shame somewhere else.

      Delete
    2. No, just an ordinary guy & ex Firefighter from the UK. I just can't believe how many nut jobs there are in the US (GodSend being a perfect example) that have to find any reason but the obvious, so as to justify their hatred of the establishment. Remote controlled planes, nuclear explosions, missiles & even control of the media to show false images of planes striking the towers. The conspiracy theorists are very sick minded individuals who spend too much time in their basement lairs reading the crazy utterances of fellow loon pots. Time you all grew up.

      Delete
    3. Again, your guilt by association and smear tactics don't work here. It's time you wake up!

      Delete
  16. Jim,

    How many of these nukes were used in each building?Where were they placed? How is the direction of the explosion controlled?

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One on each floor carried in the brief cases of a hypnotically compliant office worker, who was "told to sit near the weak point of the building. The world who as we all know is also hypnotically compliant were fed "brain messages" of images of planes hitting the twin towers. I know it's true because I read it on the internet, honestly.

      Delete
  17. Wonderful presentation of the subject, Jim. I wish more researchers were more courageous, open minded, and diligent as you. You are a one man machine. I am disappointed to learn that this new 15 year anniversary will be centered on the most prominent limited hang-out communities.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Amazing what you put together Jim, & I know the incredible time & effort you put into it. I would highly suggest you check out this pod cast on truth frequency radio with Zachary Hubbard, he has some info you might wish to integrate into your file on the subject of 9/11 here is the link. although you may be able to get to it via his youtube channel as well. http://truthfrequencyradio.com/free-to-find-truth-with-zachary-hubbard-66990/

    ReplyDelete